More like four actually. I'm not really clear whether it's helpful to define yourself in any way though - except perhaps as a 'work in progress'.The problem with definition as I see it is that you end up trying to judge if you fit the 'rules' to be a member of the club - but working from written rules seems to lead to possible dogmatism and intolerance - and maybe bizarre behaviour based on misreadings or corrupt documentation. Rather than starting from clear view it seems to start from a need to build a permanent self who somehow has to be made to fit some model and be rewarded with enlightenment!

I think one must make one's own decisions: the general principle of sila seem good to me, helping the community to live well, not building up memories of wrong-doing that would plague the here and now... and probably make concentration more difficult.

The point isn't to "define yourself" as "a virtuous lay follower" - it is to cultivate virtue and abstain from action which has very bad results.

"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."

Fair point. I think these precepts are (should be) freely entered into, and I suppose individuals will differ as to how many or which they will (try to) adhere to.My sceptical approach is to try to follow the eightfold path in a straightforward way and try not to hold opinions on anything that I cannot see clearly here and now. I do this not in order to obey the Buddha as an authority figure, but because my own small trials of it lead me to some trust of it. For me I can only go ahead (if that is the right way to put it) by telling myself the truth as seen here and now and not trying to make beliefs by auto-suggestion. I have no evidence of what may happen after I die - and thus no fear of any consequences after I die (though there are obvious consequences of actions within this life, and like a lot of us I have some fear of the process leading to death). That doesn't stop me considering a whole set of future possibilities as vanishingly unlikely based on present evidence (not what I have been told or read): going to heaven/hell, reincarnation, and in fact any continuation after death. I don't find this depressing at all - as Seneca says - consider this self as a loan - just give it back in effect at death and be thankful for having been 'given' it. If a few small glasses of wine per week makes you mentally deranged, I might suspect other non-wine causes!

If you're going to approach it that way, there's nothing stopping you or anyone from conducting a "trial" of not drinking alcohol and seeing what comes of it here and now. I would say 1 month of total abstinence at a minimum will probably reveal a few clearly visible things.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

Actually... that's a great idea! I like a challenge. Whereas the first four precepts are clearly pointing at avoiding gross wrong-doing, the 5th - though done to excess would lead to bad results - is a bit different: minor consumption is not harmful I think, but to follow the precept literally could give a good opportunity for reflection! In this way I would categorise it with precept 6. Not right now though (OK - cop out... birthdays etc) but from the next full moon (25th Apr) to 24th May... We'll see - should be interesting!

norman wrote:Actually... that's a great idea! I like a challenge. Whereas the first four precepts are clearly pointing at avoiding gross wrong-doing, the 5th - though done to excess would lead to bad results - is a bit different: minor consumption is not harmful I think, but to follow the precept literally could give a good opportunity for reflection! In this way I would categorise it with precept 6. Not right now though (OK - cop out... birthdays etc) but from the next full moon (25th Apr) to 24th May... We'll see - should be interesting!

Is alcohol required for birthdays etc.? But that's the spirit, accepting the challenge. Who knows what interesting things you might notice.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

norman wrote:I appreciate that I see these things arise in my mind, but do not see a need to hang on to them - or make them a special subject of contemplation. Perhaps these as contemplations are a sort of antidote to attachment to passing pleasure - to be used like medicine when necessary?

Perhaps arising buddha in your mind is a good antidote of contemplation, it replacing all these things you see as buddha in your mind

To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana.If you light a lamp for somebody, it will also brighten your path. He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self.

norman wrote:I appreciate that there is difficulty in translating from Pali. However these words seem very loaded and for me imply an emotional engagement with things that seems just the opposite of dispassion, observation of the way things are without judgement, letting things that arise naturally pass away again. I appreciate that I see these things arise in my mind, but do not see a need to hang on to them - or make them a special subject of contemplation. Perhaps these as contemplations are a sort of antidote to attachment to passing pleasure - to be used like medicine when necessary?

Why should one follow the constructed ideal of " observation of the way things are without judgement"? There is nothing bad about aversion against fetters if one wants to get rid of these. The aversion does not necessarly have to become a fetter itself.

We'll have to disagree on that one, ground.For example, doubt (though I think it applies to the others too): I would say doubt does not need to be labelled 'bad' or 'good' - it just exists. It should not be the subject of aversion which just adds another layer of problems. To need aversion to be there to be able to gather enough energy to tackle issues is itself a problem...

I have heard the metaphor of 'using a thorn to extract a thorn' (not sure where that comes from) - but I think this is only useful in more positive situations - for example to want to follow the path is a prime mover for starting to follow the path (though I'd assume that later on even this want would be let go of).

Doubt about the 'teachings' to me is a good approach because it leads to a need to test the teachings for oneself - and if the test reveals the teachings as true (not judged true but seen directly as true) then the doubt about those teachings disappears for itself immediately. Doubt about oneself (for example - is my meditation getting anywhere?) I think is also useful and leads to a dispassionate and honest look at oneself - and maybe change or increased understanding (for example - meditating to 'get somewhere' isn't useful - meditating - 'being there' - perhaps is).

Just to add - kirk5a's signature seems to me to sum it all up perfectly (and can be tested by any one of us directly):"When one thing is practised & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

No problem. Since I have been expressing to not share your view your disagreement follows naturally.

norman wrote:For example, doubt (though I think it applies to the others too): I would say doubt does not need to be labelled 'bad' or 'good' - it just exists. It should not be the subject of aversion which just adds another layer of problems. To need aversion to be there to be able to gather enough energy to tackle issues is itself a problem...

I cannot see a connection between this statement of yours and what I have written above, sorry.

norman wrote:I have heard the metaphor of 'using a thorn to extract a thorn' (not sure where that comes from) - but I think this is only useful in more positive situations - for example to want to follow the path is a prime mover for starting to follow the path (though I'd assume that later on even this want would be let go of).

Doubt about the 'teachings' to me is a good approach because it leads to a need to test the teachings for oneself - and if the test reveals the teachings as true (not judged true but seen directly as true) then the doubt about those teachings disappears for itself immediately. Doubt about oneself (for example - is my meditation getting anywhere?) I think is also useful and leads to a dispassionate and honest look at oneself - and maybe change or increased understanding (for example - meditating to 'get somewhere' isn't useful - meditating - 'being there' - perhaps is).

Just to add - kirk5a's signature seems to me to sum it all up perfectly (and can be tested by any one of us directly):"When one thing is practised & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

Again I cannot see a connection between these statements of yours and what I have written above, sorry.

Let me repeat what I have written above and if you want to disagree then please directly refer to these words to point out what you disagree with:

ground wrote:Why should one follow the constructed ideal of " observation of the way things are without judgement"? There is nothing bad about aversion against fetters if one wants to get rid of these. The aversion does not necessarly have to become a fetter itself.

Aversion is unwholesome, but can be noticed by sati without engendering more aversion. This is observation without judgment, or bare awareness. Thereupon right effort can come to the fore, applying metta or uppekha or other antidotes as appropriate. But the intention can never be right intention if it is rooted in aversion.

Using a thorn to extract a thorn may refer to using conceit to be rid of conceit, or using desire to be rid of desire. These are attested approaches, while using aversion to uproot aversion is definitively said to never work, in a number of places.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

If this is what you experience generally then be it so. However I cannot agree since I am experiencing that aversion can be wholesome in that it is an efficient motivator to act against what causes aversion. E.g. aversion against being distracted fosters mindfulness.

daverupa wrote:... by sati ... This is observation without judgment, or bare awareness.

From my perspective this implicit definition is merely an ideological statement following a modern trend of interpreters. There is nothing bad about judgements. Even naming experiences is a judgments and buddhist religion with its rights and wrongs is full of judgements even if these are merely understood "technically".

daverupa wrote:Thereupon right effort ...

See... A judgement ...

daverupa wrote:But the intention can never be right intention if it is rooted in aversion.

That is mere ideology that strives to categorize the experience of others.

daverupa wrote:... This is observation without judgment, or bare awareness. Thereupon right effort can come to the fore, ...

Here we have a contradiction. If there would be no judgement at all, only so called "bare awareness" effort would never arise. Why? Because effort is connected with intention, intention to change one state into another, to change a state that is judged to be non-compliant with an ideal into a state that judged to be "better" or compliant with an ideal. That is judgement. If you fail to acknowledge this inconsistency how can you think you are in a position to make general claims about what may be called "aversion", general claims that cover all possible contexts, all individuals, all times and places? But if you acknowledge this inconsistency then your generalisations will appear as expressions of merely wanting things to be a certain way, i.e. ideological statements.

You seem to think that practicing mindfulness necessitates making it ones entireraison d'être, with the consequence that any effort at all becomes impossible due to contradiction.

But mindfulness is basically an overarching awareness of what's going on, and as such has no part to play in responding to anything. It's simply a way of speaking about one aspect of the process of development and awakening.

I think that should cover the gist of things; the word salad was confusing, but so far you appear to me to be laboring under some misapprehensions.

AN 3.33 wrote:"Any action performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:You seem to think that practicing mindfulness necessitates making it ones entireraison d'être, with the consequence that any effort at all becomes impossible due to contradiction.

I cannot see a connnection of your words to what I have written, sorry. Obviously your thinking is just your thinking leading to words that cause ideas of mine that are not yours.

daverupa wrote:But mindfulness is basically an overarching awareness of what's going on, and as such has no part to play in responding to anything. It's simply a way of speaking about one aspect of the process of development and awakening.

I think that should cover the gist of things; the word salad was confusing, but so far you appear to me to be laboring under some misapprehensions.

Well so far you appear to me to be laboring under some misapprehensions (joking, because how should I be able to know your apprehension? I just see your words where no meaning inheres). And now? (No answer expected) We may continue to make statements based on our experiences. But yours may not be mine ... however your experience seems to be depending on the experience expressed by me by means of the words I am applying. Why is this? (No answer expected)

AN 3.33 wrote:"Any action performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.

I did not write anything about "actions performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion". This is just your imagination. You may read my words again. Aversion may be helpful. There is no need to generate aversion against aversion. However if aversion causes poblems aversion against aversion may be helpful to get rid of it.

Living in society there are conventions that we (hopefully) are brought up with - for example a strong dislike of acts of cruelty. On a conventional level these are valuable as they act as an emotional check on behaviour which is destructive (and would be bad for the survival of the species).

I think though that this aversion can be a block to understanding oneself, and can lead to very destructive behaviour - for example taking revenge for an act of cruelty done against someone in one's community (and civil wars seem to be specially nasty in this respect). Aversion carries in its wake blind anger.

So on a conventional level it is good that we have these inbuilt emotional checks against doing wrong - but I think that following the Buddha's path has the potential to change things at their root: for example a destructive thought arises, and instead of identifying with it perhaps one can fearlessly see it just as a thought (not-self) which arises, and inevitably will eventually disappear. Aversion towards any thought (or emotion) makes a 'me with aversion' - which may arise and in the same way is just noted as 'aversion arisen' which in its turn is not-self and will disappear. In neither case is the event made 'mine' as some sort of tool to get something done. To feel aversion towards the aversion is to be caught in an endless cycle - maybe only broken by simply concentrating on the breath. To me following the path involves some trust - to try out what the Buddha recommended in a few main suttas (Dhammacakkappavattana, Satipaṭṭhāna) in the spirit of exploration - not treating them as dogma, and when fear arises (perhaps when seeing some of the contents of one's own mind) knowing that there is a large community that has followed and is following this path - so not to fear harm if honestly practised.

Perhaps it is possible instead to feel metta towards aversion - as not-self - after all can we not in some way feel at least pity towards a tyrant caught in a cycle of bad behaviour (I don't know)? That is not to condone it or rule out action on a conventional level of course.

norman wrote:I appreciate that there is difficulty in translating from Pali. However these words seem very loaded and for me imply an emotional engagement with things that seems just the opposite of dispassion, observation of the way things are without judgement, letting things that arise naturally pass away again. I appreciate that I see these things arise in my mind, but do not see a need to hang on to them - or make them a special subject of contemplation. Perhaps these as contemplations are a sort of antidote to attachment to passing pleasure - to be used like medicine when necessary?

Could you provide a reference to a sutta where it is instructed to practice "dispassion, observation of the way things are without judgement, letting things that arise naturally pass away again"?

That aversion that one feels may be just the tip of the iceberg, with a skillful basis.

For example, after having felt intense and persistent aversion for fashion photographs and advertisements, I eventually started to collect pictures at which I have felt aversion. I've looked at them regularly and tried to notice what goes on in my mind. The biggest insight has been that I simply feel dismayed over how I otherwise tend to live my life, paying to much attention to the actions of others, indulging in this or that activity that I am otherwise quite sure is not wholesome.Eventually, it dawned on me that if I were to pay more attention to how I go about my daily life, I'd also feel less aversion to fashion photographs. Which in practice turned out to be true.

ground wrote:There is nothing bad about aversion against fetters if one wants to get rid of these. The aversion does not necessarly have to become a fetter itself.

Sure. To be dispassionate about heedlessness would be quite heedless!

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.